Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cawthorne Haines


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Please see ANI discussion, "David Cawthorne Haines AfD", for rationale. If I have to cite anything, for now I'll cite IAR. (Undeletion is cheap.) Drmies (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

David Cawthorne Haines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two reasons:


 * 1) WP:BLP1E - Haines was an unknown entity until he was named in an execution video recently. His career prior is completely un-notable. Unlike some other recent beheading victims, who were journalists with prior claims to notability, Haines has no prior notability.
 * 2) WP:BLP - Haines family has asked that his name not be used in public for fears of his safety. This is standard security procedure that some families will take. They don't want him to become a notable figure because it makes hostage negotiations more difficult (eg. higher ransom figures) and/or makes them a target for assassination since they are known figures, like James Foley. Although we don't automatically delete articles just because someone wants that, we do have the option to respect issues like this on editorial BLP grounds.  Green  C  14:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am unable to locate any information stating that the family has asked for his name not to be released. I can find information that states she has declined comment. Google Search of his name on Google News provides results indicating there are now 14,000 news articles that mention his name.MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (links posted below by Edmund Patrick showing the family asked for his name not to be used for his safety). -- Green  C  23:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Goggle's results are skewed, when you scroll through the pages it will stop after a few hundred results. There's no doubt he has received press coverage. But I searched by date and was unable to find any mention of Haines prior to a few days ago, it's all one-event notability. I'm waiting to hear back from User:Edmund Patrick, who said on the talk page "the family have asked that he not be named in the UK." Presumably Patrick didn't make that up? -- Green  C  15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to Kidnapping of David Haines. IRW0 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete unless something horrible actually happens to the poor man and his name becomes public: the family have asked to keep his identity concealed (see here) and Wikipedia should respect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.21.191 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * His name is already public; this isn't a case of just a small number of sources reporting it but most keeping it private (e.g., as might happen with a minor.) I'd also say that being kidnapped by Islamist militants and threatened with beheading already counts as something horrible (but more importantly, notable.) IRW0 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Haines' name is already all over the news. The world wants to know who he is.  Wikipedia exists to inform. Could/should be moved to to Kidnapping of David Hainesas per User:IRW0.ShulMaven (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems like a textbook case of BLP1E to me.  He's only covered in this context, he's a low-profile individual, and his role in the whole 'journalists kidnapped by ISIS' event is not very sizable at this point.  The article also illustrates that this topic is problematic:  the linkedin profile is pure unadulterated original research, and none of the other three things listed about him are very interesting or important.  It's also a bit tasteless to have such a vapid article in the face of the family's pleas to limit publicity.  The keep votes have very little supporting reasoning to support them.   AgnosticAphid  talk 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. His name has already been published worldwide. He was projected into the public's conscious when he appeared and also when his name was published in the Sotloff video, which is of worldwide interest and concern.MeropeRiddle (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Editing to add that as of today, the Guardian has gone ahead and also published his name: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/uk-isis-hostage-aid-worker-yorkshire-born-father-of-two "Kneeling, his arms apparently bound behind his back and dressed in an orange jumpsuit, identical to that which Sotloff was wearing when he was killed, his full name – David Cawthorne Haines – appeared in a caption on the video, in both Arabic and English." The article also states, "Shortly after the film was released the British government asked the media to withhold Haines's identity, at the request of his family, but within minutes his name was being published widely online by international news organisations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Sydney Morning Herald." Patrick Wintour of the Guardian is British, and the Guardian is a British paper.MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. He is not notable enough in terms of wikipedia, he is a potential victim. I think the article is premature. He has not had a long enough life to make a name for himself. I believe the article has been created too early. I expect to see his name appear in articles NOW about the Islamic State, related articles and in the articles about Abdel Majed Abdel Bary, Abu Hussain al-Britani, and Abduallah al-Britani. --Pennine rambler (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not at this moment going to recommend delete or not as it needs a bit of thought but Green C was right I should have referenced my point, apologies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29040550 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741496/British-hostage-life-threatened-latest-ISIS-execution-video-subject-failed-rescue-attempt-US-special-forces.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/03/steven-sotloff-david-cameron-cobra_n_5757048.html?ir=UK+Politics are but three examples. Once more apologies.Edmund Patrick – confer 20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete On both procedural and moral grounds. It's obviously one event stuff, at least at this point. And given that publishing his name might increase the chances of him being killed, this is a really easy call to make. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolute Keep He meets WP:NOTABILITY. also, the article (created by me) Steven Joel Sotloff was made before he was killed. David Haines is all over the news and is a hostage of ISIS. This is part of an ongoing situation, we should keep this by all costs. Like James Foley, and Steven Sotloff, people want to hear about this guy. JhonsJoe (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a good argument to keep this. I agree David is all over the news and while that is true we have a policy WP:NOTNEWS that says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" so when you say he is notable can you please tell how he is notable outside of this event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT no indication that this person is notable outside of this event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * I think this was deletion was closed prematurely. I think it should go to Deletion review.~Technophant (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This should have stayed open for seven days. Also, there was no consensus reached.166.181.82.230 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Review discussion started at Deletion_review.~Technophant (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted. Looks like on privacy grounds. Best to let it go until something changes where there's no longer privacy concerned. -- Green  C  03:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oversighter note: Due to changes in real-world circumstances, suppression criteria are no longer met for the suppression of this page. Suppression has been lifted, as have the deletions that were made in order to support suppression/in advance of requesting suppression. Further discussion of this decision to delete should move to the deletion review pages.  Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)